Posted
by
samzenpus
on Monday August 18, 2014 @03:03PM
from the needs-a-cleaning dept.

Deathspawner writes Windows 8 brought a lot to the table, with one of its most major features being its app store. However, it's not a feature that Microsoft seems too intent on keeping clean. As it is today, the store is completely littered with misleading apps and outright scamware. The unfortunate thing is that to find any of it, all you have to do is simply open the store and peruse the main sections. Not so surprisingly, no Microsoft software seems to be affected by this, but many open-source apps can be found at the store from unofficial sources that have a cost, or will lead the user to download a third-party installer. It's only a matter of time before malware sneaks its way in, if it's not there already.

That is the whole problem. Windows 8 is not designed to produce anything, only consume stuff produced by others. Probably another reason it has never caught on with businesses, you can't actually do anything useful or productive with it.

That answer was just as bland and useless as the form letters most tech support sites give you. You said the official policy but didn't answer the question. To answer his question, the answer is a simple "You shouldn't." I have plenty of PC's running old versions of Windows and they chug along just fine even though they officially EOL'd decades ago. My first industrial control system (Wonderware HMI, Modicon PLC) is chugging along fine on a 486 running Win 95 and I built it in 1994 while I was still in

The whole EOL thing is laughed at by us out in the real world building things. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and if it is broken, it still won't get fixed until it costs the company less money than the amount they're losing.

I agree with you so long as a device is not connected to the Internet. I still run a game console made in the late 1980s, for instance. Devices connected to the Internet, on the other hand, are subject to attacks that were not foreseen prior to EOL.

But why should I get Win8 when I have to get it and then jump a few hoops to get what I already had with Win7?

Because most new PCs come with it installed. I don't see any reason to upgrade an existing Windows 7 PC to Windows 8 but it's hardly the end of the world if you buy a new PC with Win8 already installed.

Exactly. If you buy a new PC and it happens to have Windows 8.1 on it, you can just skip the Windows Store and use it as if it were Windows 7. I don't understand some people's insistence on a downgrade, especially because there's no big change in driver model like there was between Windows XP and Windows Vista.

This is a pretty bad example of clickbait. The linked bog basically says "There is junkware. Microsoft's Trademarks are protected but others, like iTunes and Firefox, get scammed by repackagers, same as any search engine.

All this means is that companies like Apple and Mozilla happen not to have notified Microsoft of the infringement yet. So if you're worried about it, go tell Apple's legal department [apple.com] and Mozilla's [mozilla.org].

All this means is that companies like Apple and Mozilla happen not to have notified Microsoft of the infringement yet. So if you're worried about it, go tell Apple's legal department [apple.com] and Mozilla's [mozilla.org].

Why should they have to? The store is supposed to be curated and given these examples, it's obvious it is not curated at all.

The monopoly app store of an operating system with the market share of Windows cannot be curated as tightly without raising red flags to regulators that Microsoft is abusing its monopoly. True, the US gave Microsoft a slap on the wrist after George W. Bush took office, but at least Europe's competition regulators still have some testicular fortitude. Apple and the major video game console makers get away with it because their market share is not necessarily large enough to produce what economists call "mark

I paid for the ModernUI version of Plex. It was $2 or something and it's pretty much a showpiece for the touchscreen experience on Windows.However, I own both a Surface and a Surface Pro, so I actually use it. I also own Plex on iOS, GoogleTV, the Play Store and Amazon's app store. Getting it for Windows 8 was really more about completing the collection.

We don't bring up Clinton on every DMCA article even though he was the one that signed the damn thing into law

Actually, blaming Clinton for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Copyright Term Extension Act happens fairly often here on Slashdot, and it's bullcrap. Both bills were bipartisan and passed both houses through voice vote. Under the US Constitution, a voice vote needs greater than four-fifths assent, which is well over the two-thirds needed to override a presidential veto. So instead, I blame MPAA members' ownership of the news media.

No, but I'm trying to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt for a moment. This way I can get fallacies out of the way so that others can post the clearest reasons they know of for holding Microsoft responsible for wrongdoing.

Currently Microsoft needs more apps than it does quality. When they approach a customer they can tell them they have a gazillion apps in their store to deflect the "but the iPhone/Android has so many more apps.". Rest assured once it blows up in their faces they will clamp down hard. They are famous for reactionary overcompensation.

Lacking evidence to the contrary, it seems Microsoft actively approves this state of things. They have a human performing certification and content compliance, which involves actually installing and verifying these applications:

"Content compliance: Our certification testers install and review your app to test it for content compliance. The amount of time this takes varies depending on how complex your app is, how much visual content it has, and how many apps have been submitted recently."

With that statement, they must be 100% complicit in these scams, because it makes them money when someone bites, and because it keeps the number of apps in the app store up.

I think we have plenty of evidence to the contrary. Microsoft has, and does, willfully provide false information. They do this deliberately and indiscriminately, even to judges while under oath. Maybe you forgot about the claims to a judge that "If you remove Internet Explorer the Operating system stops functioning.". Even though a judge was smart enough to remove IE and show they were lying, nobody went to jail. So the trend continued.

Now what possible motivation would MS have for lying about approving apps? Easy, it's a numbers game. If Apple has half a billion applications how can MS fudge numbers to look relevant and not appear to be deliberate liars? Easy! Let people dump all kinds of crap into their app store so they can claim "look how many applications we have!' and "Look at our growth rate, thousands of new apps every day!". Both are technically true, though based on a lie about monitoring.

MS further can easily blow off the lie about approving content. Expect something along the lines of "Our people were not trained properly" with some bogus "we were hacked" charges sprinkled in for FUD and sympathy.

Not at the start, which was during the first antitrust trial. Yes, they later adjusted their claim mostly to keep executives from being guilty of perjury. Subsequent trials did not see the flat out lie, but the variation.

You can search the DOJ for the transcripts of the trial. Groklaw may have copies as well.

But platforms relying on a single app store have in the past made copyleft license compliance difficult or impossible. The GNU General Public License, for example, defines "source code" to include what GPLv3 calls "Installation Information" and GPLv2 calls "scripts used to control compilation and installation". When a platform requires all code to be digitally signed, a signing key is part of this "Information" or these "scripts". And the terms for obtaining a code signing certificate tend to forbid developers from sharing the private key with the public. This is why GPL software like VLC can't be on Apple's App Store [slashdot.org], nor can ScummVM be on the Wii console [slashdot.org].

That can happen if all GPL code gets relicensed or rewritten. VideoLAN's page about VLC for iOS [videolan.org] states that it was relicensed under the Mozilla Public License, and presumably that wouldn't include any contributions from a contributor who declined to relicense his contributions. I wasn't party to the relicensing negotiations, and I lack my own iOS device on which to evaluate this app. Are any significant codecs or containers missing?

Yeah, the problem before was that Apple was selling a license on behalf of a third party, which runs a foul with the GPL. If Apple charge for the software and not for a license then they would be able to sell it. Since this is "Free", they aren't selling a license so it doesn't have issues with the GPL.

I must have missed where the OP said that this behavior was illegal, or that the FSF said it was wrong to profit from software. The point was that Microsoft endorses the behavior of scamming the unsuspecting noob into thinking they have to buy a product, when it is available for free.

And I missed the point where OP said someone had already made the open-source stuff available for free - in the windows app store.Just because its open source doesn't automatically mean you can "apt-get install" it on Windows.

If I remember correctly, the issue with VLC on the Apple store was that the GPL allows charging for the software but does not allow charging for the license. Since Apple doesn't charge for the software but instead charges for a license to the software on behalf of a third party. So you can put free GPL on the Apple store but not pay for, even though GPL allows for it.

I actually had to read about the Wii store issue. The issue there seems to be that a subcontractor used both ScummVM and Nintendo's SDK. Nintendo explictly prohibits use of open source software together with their Wii SDK. Again nothing have to do with keys. Use of the Wii SDK forbids Open Source, so it doesn't what the terms of the GPL are, no GPL at all on the Wii Store.

If I remember correctly, the issue with VLC on the Apple store was that the GPL allows charging for the software but does not allow charging for the license.

I thought it involved ensuring that anybody possessing a usable copy can make and distribute usable and modifiable copies to other users, and Apple doesn't let app developers ensure this.

Use of the Wii SDK forbids Open Source

There's plenty of non-copylefted open source software in the Wii Menu, Internet Channel, and Wii Shop Channel. Nintendo's SDK license appears to just forbid use of copylefted software. If you want, I can hook up my Wii console and find exactly how to open the list of copyright notices for the non-copylefted open source libr

But nothing forbids getting the unsigned code via a side channel. So get ScummVM on your console and it includes a note about how to get the unsigned version along with an HMAC or MD5 sum to verify it is secure.

If this "side channel" does not allow the user to install a modified version of the work on at least some device, then it does not include "scripts used to control [...] installation of the executable" and is thus not "complete source code".

Actually, you don't need to provide signing keys for GPLv2. Tivo used GPLv2 code without a signing key, and the only thing the FSF could do was come out with GPLv3 that explicitly prevents that. That was one of the driving forces behind GPLv3 (although they did a lot of other things as well).

The difference is that every platform I can think of that uses APT allows root to add signers.

Debian-based PC operating systems allow the administrator to add third-party repositories with their own certificates. They also don't require that code be signed just to execute; one can install applications from outside the repositories or use applications compiled from source code without having to pay a recurring fee for a "developer license". This is in contrast to platforms designed to work with only one r

I don't know about other users but I've had an ASUS Windows 8.1 desktop for almost a year now and have never downloaded or installed ANY apps from the Microsoft "store" and have only once clicked on the App Store tile itself once by mistake. I avoid their "store" like the plague on a desktop environment. I don't have the need or want to Skype or play Angry Birds on the desktop I guess...who uses the Microsoft App Store and for what purposes? I'm genuinely curious...

Apparently Microsoft is putting major service packs for Windows on the Windows Store now. For example, the upgrade from Windows 8 to Windows 8.1 is offered without charge through the Windows Store application. But if you waited until Windows 8.1 to buy your laptop, this upgrade was already done for you.

I see. Thanks. It makes me wonder then why they don't remove the Windows Update separate program altogether and have all OS updates done through their store if they're wanting more customer awareness and compulsive drive-buys for apps/media.

I use the Citrix receiver, since the Windows App Store version doesn't start up stuff (like the Citrix Connection center) when you log into your PC that disables window effects/themes. It also doesn't throw annoying icons in your start menu and on your desktop for remote apps. Great for the PC you only occasionally connect to Citrix with.
I also use a cool Kanji lookup app on my convertible ultrabook.
I have a few games I've bought through it, but it's pretty minimal.

I use it quite a bit. I like the metro Skype better, since I want it more full screen. I like it for email and chat too since I can have metro snapped to the side with desktop full screen. I also use a metro calculator for similar reasons.

Why would anybody find this useful? If there's a particularly obscure but useful open-source app that updates irregularly, or it's difficult or cumbersome to install, or maybe Grandma just doesn't want to mess around with MSI and EXE installers, then the new publisher would be adding value and providing a service in providing the open-source across the Store interface; reducing the fuss needed to get the software working, updated and safe.

There's nothing stopping the original developer / copyright holder / copyright assignment entity, or indeed any other legally allowed entity, from putting up the software on the Store for gratis (assuming the Store allows that) alongside New Publisher's paid for version, but if they haven't or don't want to that is their own problem. If the New Publisher has monitised the service they provide in packaging the OSS app, then bully for them.

This is all in a fantasy land where said 'good' publishers existed and actually worked to keep the software updated regularly, I know.

The difference is in the prevalance. Scamware in iOS and Android exists on the fringes; some % of all software will always be illegitimate. But Microsoft has so little legit content that the scamware rises to the top way more often than occurs for the other stores.

Isn't this a trend with all app stores now? There's little incentive for any developer to create something only to have it cloned the next day, and have your original app downvoted by the army of the "competition", e.g., http://www.reddit.com/r/gamede... [reddit.com]. I'm starting to think there are more "rogue" apps than legit ones.

Many apps use Adware anyway, which is just a backdoor waiting to happen. Do you trust the developer not to sell you to the highest bidder? The information you hold might be more valuable th

Worse that pay-to-play software of dubious quality is the entire lack of support for major applications, and a complete lack of serious productivity and mainstream apps. Many of the apps are poor stepchildren of their Android and iOS counterparts if they even exist at all. A useful, app-style browser is woefully missing (for those who have convertible tablet/laptops, you can't have Chrome, IE or FF act as an app/finger centric if you use them in desktop mode.)

The iOS and Android app stores are full of shit, too, but at least there's some good stuff out there. For MS, all they have is the shit.

....to the table. Some of it might even be good, but hiding it under a steaming pile of UI was not the smoothest of moves. As for their store, color me shocked that MS of all people copied a competitor's product with a half-assed implementation.

As I said in the AV is Dead Article, I tell our customers "Don't download or install anything" and I mean it. The windows store is like the wild west. They do no QA on the content and refuse to remove obvious scam acts. Hell, MS in many cases doesn't even host the files, they post a button that says "Get App From Publisher" that leads to a third party site where you can "download" the file. That's just stupid.

App stores attract scammers like **** attracts flies. Any app store is an ideal means to get scam- and malware to a gigantic group of, on average, not really tech-savvy people. An app store is basically a mark store for scammers.

They wanted so badly to be Apple, taking a cut of every software sale by being the only vendor for their own system.

What they neglected is that people don't want brainless "apps" for true multipurpose computers. So their brainless store got filled with brainless garbage to take advantage of the brainless users who'd use it.

well that exactly is the joke that windows mobile 6.5 is more full flavored operating system than windows 8 rt or windows phone 7/8.

so you have all the scamware and nothing "must have" in the appstores. heck, they initially tried to tell that you'll need to use the appstore to download 8.1 update for x86 windows 8. but guess what? you'd be a real voodoo man if you could dodge all the prompts to install the 8.1 update that get shoved to your face!!

There isn't much in the way of video production / compositing/3D modeling software for Android, now is there?

Let's also remember that the average consumer throttles their smartphone/PC/laptop about 1% of the time.

And Apple's model works for the "average consumer." How about people who are producing content rather than consuming it? Right now, they use desktop PC's and software that will never been in the MS walled garden.

Let's remember that cell phones with quad-core processors can be docked to Bluetooth keyboards and HDMI displays these days. So to a first approximation, what makes it a general-purpose computer is whether the device's owner can make and run programs for it, as programming is a "purpose". A lot of popular devices do not qualify as general-purpose computers if the user hasn't paid a recurring fee for a developer license.

Can you effectively program the device _with the device_. e.g. if you need a mac to develop an iPhone app the iPhone is _not_ a general purpose computer. If you need someone else to authorize a local install the device is _not_ a general purpose computer.

I'm going to throw an assumption out there: very, very few people are doing this. Yes, you could - in theory - "dock" your phone/tablet and do productive things with it. But a really top-notch phone is going to cost you $600+ and a really low-end computer that can kick the shit out of it will cost $200. I think that anyone who can afford the monitor, keyboard, and high-end phone will probably not sweat the cheap cpu too much.

So in the end, while I'm sure there are people in the fringes doing productive things on their phones and tablets, for the vast majority they are toys. This is not meant to be a disparaging comment - I have a smartphone, I have tablets... but I don't do anything more productive on them than take short notes and check email. Mostly they are consumption devices.

A quad core phone has less IPC than a Pentium 4, a dead end CPU that is over a half a decade old. Take the absolute lowest Intel and AMD quads, the Atom and Jaguar respectively, and put it against the most expensive top 'o the line ARM quad and what happens? the ARM gets a curbstomping, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the latest chips from Intel and AMD couldn't bitchslap the ARM with half their cores disabled, they are THAT mismatched.

Also here [notebookcheck.net] it's more of a mixed bag but the Atom gets thoroughly beaten and the Tegra4 and Jaguar trade the lead.

I understand running a business that depends on PCs is where your obvious bias comes from but the facts don't lie, this isn't to say that ARM is better than x86 but in some cases it is and it most certainly isn't the "curbstomping" you claim it to be.

Also here [notebookcheck.net] it's more of a mixed bag but the Atom gets thoroughly beaten and the Tegra4 and Jaguar trade the lead.

I understand running a business that depends on PCs is where your obvious bias comes from but the facts don't lie, this isn't to say that ARM is better than x86 but in some cases it is and it most certainly isn't the "curbstomping" you claim it to be.

But your analysis is only correct if you live in the past. With baytrail Intel is again stomping ARM and this is only getting worse now that Intel has set ist sights on this market segment.

And anyhow, I've got a PC from circa 1998 that I use to run some older software, and I wouldn't expect much argument that that's a general purpose computer, even though my last 2 phones far outclass its performance in every measurable way. Performance level doesn't have much to do with whether something's a real computer or not.

So ARM is in the same boat x86 was in compared to high end RISC all those years ago...You could have your cheap, slow and unscalable x86 - or you could have a fast Alpha at 10x the price. Look what happened there?

Their business is going well. Why would they care about their customers? Of course, if ever a real alternative comes along (or they cannot bribe enough people anymore), quite a few people will never look back.

Windows has been phoning home since the introduction of Windows XP in the fourth quarter of 2001. Yet most people don't care, as the ability to run Windows-exclusive applications and drivers for Windows-exclusive peripherals outweighs the pain of product activation and Windows Genuine Advantage checks.

I have used the Google Play store a fair but limited number of times. In each case I found a great app for free in almost no time. I have never used, nor would I ever use the Windows App Store, so I can't speak to that, but apparently the submitter can. If I believe him, and I do, then comparing the two is absurd at best.

Android OS has supported two ways to "sideload" software outside Google Play Store from day one. One is through "Unknown sources": if you download an Android application package (APK), you can open it in a file manager (or even just the Downloads app) and install it. Just about every Android device, except AT&T's first few months of Android phones, has a checkbox in Settings to allow "Unknown sources" installations. But even on those more restricted AT&T devices, one can still use Android Debug Brid

The Store is awesome. When I boot up a new computer, I go to my download history, click re-install and my computer is back to the way it was. I don't have to go to a dozen websites to find each of the apps I use regularly.*

The choice is between Google search and a store, I prefer the store. At least the download button is actually a download button not a "Pop up 10 ads" button like on a lot of download sites.

*I still do since not everything is in the store, but the apps that I do use from the store are

I understand you have strongly held beliefs about turning development of computer programs distributed to the public into an apprenticeship system analogous to Professional Engineer licensure. But thought-terminating cliches like "history doesn't matter" don't help others understand your reasoning. The conditions that allowed an an institution to come to power certainly have a bearing on why it should remain in power. Otherwise, for example, why would any JRPG have a flashback to events that occurred before

The conditions that allowed an an institution to come to power certainly have a bearing on why it should remain in power. Otherwise, for example, why would any JRPG have a flashback to events that occurred before the start of the game?

Apples and oranges. One is Real life, one is a game. You deal with the situation you have, not the one you want to have.

Yeah, Atari was founded by Nolan Bushnell who repaired pinball and made a deal with another company to distribute his first game. Atari's first engineer, who did Pong, was a former Ampex Employee.

Steve Wozniak had worked for Atari and HP.

Hell, Ralph Baer was working for Sanders Associates when he developed the first game console. Sanders itself was founded by former employees of Raythe

To do so, I must understand under what conditions I will continue to have the situation I have.

Quit yer bitchin

I will once the present suggestion has been proved to be workable.

go to work for someone else for a while

In a strict apprenticeship paradigm, only an established software development firm should be allowed to make computer programs and distribute copies of them to the public. So in such a paradigm, how would someone applying for a job with "someone else" distribute copies of his own portfolio or otherwise demonstrate skills to prospective employers?

But there is simply nothing MS can do to be cool. MS is like a 40 year old pretending to be a 20 year old. That's not going to be cool in any way, no matter what you do.

They could do what smart 40 year olds do, accept their place and build on it. They will not hit with the chicks that wants a 20 year old, but they sure can get those that dig age. Provided they don't embarrass themselves with acting like something they simply are not. THAT is a relationship killer. For everyone.